A Stronger Future for Air Passenger Rights: What the Latest Rulings Mean for You

Clear skies ahead for air passenger rights - buckle up for the protections you deserve!

On October 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued a landmark ruling confirming that airlines can be required to compensate passengers for certain international flight disruptions and that compensation is consistent with the Montreal Convention. This decision, along with other recent rulings, marks a significant shift in how air passenger rights are enforced in Canada and highlights the growing responsibility of airlines to provide fair compensation. With these key legal developments, the doors are opening for air passenger rights, and passengers now have a clearer path to seek compensation for delays, cancellations, and other travel disruptions. If you’ve been affected by any flight issues, now is the time to understand your rights and take action.

As a background, in 2018, Parliament amended the Canada Transportation Act (“CTA”). Those amendments mandated that the Canadian Transportation Agency (the “Agency”) create regulations establishing a “new air passenger rights regime”. Following this, in 2019, the Agency introduced the Canadian Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR). These regulations stipulate the requirements that airlines must adhere to in terms of passenger compensation for flight delays, cancellations, denial of boarding and lost or damaged baggage.

What is the Montreal Convention?

The Montreal Convention is an international treaty that governs compensation for flight disruptions. In 2001, Canada signed the Montreal Convention, which was subsequently incorporated into Canadian law. The Montreal Convention limits what compensation airlines can be required to pay passengers for international flight disruptions. Article 29 of the Montreal Convention says that any “action for damages” within the scope of the agreement is subject to those conditions and limits. This is called the “exclusivity principle”, because it prevents a person from bringing an “action for damages” not subject to the conditions and limits, even if there is another basis in law to do so.

The airlines, including the International Air Transport Association (IATA), felt that the APPR was unfavourable and argued before the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) that the APPR conflicted with the Montreal Convention. The airlines claimed that the APPR overstepped Canada’s legal authority based on the limits imposed by the Montreal Convention for international air travel and should not apply.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Ruling: A Win for Passengers

The FCA dismissed the challenge brought by the airlines, with the exception of the provisions relating to the temporary loss of baggage. It considered the compatibility of the APPR with the Montreal Convention and concluded that the compensation provided for under the APPR is not an “action for damages”. Disappointed with the outcome, the airlines appealed to the SCC. The airlines sought an order setting aside certain provisions of the APPR as they relate to international air travel. The SCC dismissed the airlines’ appeal.

The SCC held that the Montreal Convention is exclusive within the scope of the matters that it addresses but does not deal comprehensively with all aspects of international air travel. Under Article 29 of the Montreal Convention, there must be an “action” that leads to “damages” for the exclusivity principle to apply. However, the APPR do not provide for an “action for damages” because they do not provide for individualized compensation. Rather, they create a consumer protection scheme that operates in parallel with the Montreal Convention, without trenching on its liability limitation provisions. Thus, they do not fall within the scope of the Montreal Convention’s exclusivity principle.

Since the APPR do not give rise to liability that is averted by Article 29 of the Montreal Convention, the APPR does not conflict with the Montreal Convention and there is no basis to conclude that they are outside the jurisdiction of the Agency.

What this Ruling Means for You

Given the ruling that APPR does not conflict with the Montreal Convention, and they do not fall under the exclusivity principle in Article 29 of the Montreal Convention, the flight path to better air passenger protections is now cleared for takeoff!

The Montreal Convention placed limits on the compensation airlines must pay for international flight disruptions. With the SCC finding that the APPR operates concurrently with the Convention, this ruling offers additional protections and compensation to passengers. These APPR do not constitute an "action for damages" as defined in the Montreal Convention, which means they are not bound by its compensation limits.

Fundamentally, while the Montreal Convention governs certain aspects of international air travel, the APPR can still provide additional passenger protections without contradicting the Montreal Convention. This makes the APPR an essential resource for passengers seeking compensation that exceed the lower limits set by the Montreal Convention.

Contact Us

The turbulence is over - air passenger rights are now cruising at a higher altitude! If you’ve been affected by an international flight delay, cancellation, or lost baggage, you may be entitled to compensation. Given the growing momentum of air passenger rights in Canada, there is no better time to pursue compensation if you have experienced any flight issues. Contact Ishpreet Golhar at igolhar@gfslaw.ca or Ryan Morstad at rmorstad@gfslaw.ca to find out what compensation you may be entitled to. For general inquiries please contact appr@gfslaw.ca.